Letters to the Editor Sept. 15, 2019
Emergency alerts should also include a sirenDear Editor
Nixle, cell phones, and NOAA radio options are strong ideas, but why can’t we also have a siren? The authorities are saying (1) Not everyone would hear a siren; (2) We can’t afford it; and (3) It will interfere with our current siren call to volunteers.
Regarding (1): Just the saving of one life would justify putting in a siren. It’s like saying we shouldn’t have safety laws because not everyone would obey them. The cell phone or NOAA radio options also have flaws, yet they are still strongly considered. For (2): There is no question that if Kenwood residents really wanted to raise the money for a new siren we could do it. Look how much money we have raised for Kenwood School. Surely the safety of our children and community is just as important. And (3) A new siren could have a distinctive sound which would clearly indicate an emergency rather than a call to volunteers.
NOAA weather radio really worksDear Editor,
I am a resident of Oakmont and my wife and I have severe hearing problems. I was concerned about being advised of a fire, as I cannot hear anything when my hearing aids are out, as when I sleep.
For the past two years I have been advocating a fire warning siren system for Oakmont.
That suggestion has met with very mixed reactions.
The Kenwood Press had an article in the paper suggesting a Midland WR 400 Weather Radio tuned to 162.475 as a way to be advised of a fire. I purchased the radio from Amazon. $69. On Sept. 5, there was a test of the service.
I can report to you that the radio works perfectly!! It makes a loud alarm that can be heard without hearing aids and is audible throughout the entire house.
If the county is able to properly utilize the radio warning system at the proper time, for us, this clearly removes the need for any siren system.
I believe the radio offers those with hearing impairment a very satisfactory way to be informed in the event of a fire or other impending disaster.
Dr. Julian M. Lifschiz
Kudos to current Oakmont board, previous one not so muchDear Editor,
First, thank you for your [Sept. 1] article “Small claims lawsuit filed over golf club sale.” Many of us in Oakmont would not be aware of this suit or its particulars if not for your publication. I write to you to give those outside of Oakmont some perspective on the matter of our recent community voter-approved increase in our dues for 2020 and the consequent intended purchase of the Oakmont Golf Club. This measure passed by an overwhelming majority vote – 73 percent!
The current board and its president have been embraced by an overwhelming majority of neighbors for its decency, openness, fairness, vision, and thorough commitment to difficult and complex work for the betterment of Oakmont now and into the future. For this they are paid nothing except for the sincere appreciation of the greater Oakmont community. These board members are Steve Spanier, Tom Kendrick, Heidi Klyn, Carolyn Bettencourt, Noel Lyons, Jess Marzak and Marianne Neufeld. Great thanks are also due to Elke Strunka, our Treasurer (non-board member) and to all the volunteer supporting committees assisting the board especially the Finance Committee and Communication Committee. I apologized to those many other volunteers and committees I have not named that also supported the board with their insights and special knowledge.
By contrast the past board president and [inactive] attorney who has brought this small claims suit cited in the Kenwood Press article resigned just a few months into her two-year term. Shortly afterward a number of members of her board did likewise. Clearly she and her small group of supporters were not equipped to deal with the responsibilities of Oakmont governance, but have never been adverse to whining and bellyaching when other boards do their job well.
It is my hope that the communities outside of Oakmont that your paper reaches now better appreciate the silliness and pathology of this suit.